When I saw 28 Days Later I thought a lot about how the function of the virus there was very believable (at least for a zombie flick), so this epidemiologist's thoughts about a zombie outbreak is pretty awesome:
The most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to hit hard and hit often.
In case my position on this isn't clear: Why We Immunize
The New York Times weighs in on Expelled:
Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in “Planet of the Apes.†This is not argument, it’s circus, a distraction from the film’s contempt for precision and intellectual rigor. This goes further than a willful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The film suggests, for example, that Dr. Sternberg lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination but neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.
The National Center for Science Education has a site specifically set up to take down Expelled, it's called Expelled Exposed.
Scientific American has a review of Expelled:
Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks - all recycled from previous pro-ID works - would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.
...
It speaks to their anti-intellectualism and fundamental misunderstanding of science that for the makers of Expelled (and ID advocates more generally) the answer "we don't know yet" is a badge of shame. "We don't know yet" is what defines the fruitful frontier for science; it is what directs scientists' curiosity and motivates them to spend years on research. Research starts where knowledge and certainty drop off. It's one of the many ironies of Expelled that Ben Stein says he wants this movie to free people to ask questions about science, but the ID theories he defends would close off inquiry with nonanswers.
Mark Hoofnagle (two posts in a row link to the same blog, weird) has an interesting answer to the question "Which parts of the human body could you design better?" His discussion of the female reproductive system brings up points I had never even thought to think of (if that makes any sense):
... pregnancy in humans results in a fetus sitting on the bladder and colon for several months ...
Warning: there are scientific diagrams of human naughty bits in the article.
Mark Hoofnagle on why Denialists (Intelligent Design proponents, Homeopaths, Holocaust Deniers, etc.) should not be debated.
Academia and science are critically dependent on debate, this is true, but the prerequisite for having the debate is having people who are honestly interested in pursuing the truth and operate using the same rules of evidence and proof. It's not about censoring dissent, which the cranks insist is the issue in their eternal pursuit of persecution. It's about having standards for evidence and discussion. This is why these debates, when confined to a courtroom, often fair so disastrously for the denialists. In the presence of standards that exist before evidence can be introduced, they are left with nothing.